Support NeoGAF

[Sirpopopop]

I have no problem with Iran getting nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Any argument I've seen against this occurring has been an absolute joke designed to scare ignorant people. Iran isn't just going to nuke the shit out of Israel for no reason. They gain nothing from that. Furthermore, the idea that Iran getting nukes means that terrorists get nukes is a dumb argument. Terrorists already have access to nukes. They just don't use them because there's better ways to spread terrorism than utilizing a highly volatile substance that is difficult to transport and is expensive to store and weaponize.

Also let's be honest here; Iran is going this route because they saw what happened to Iraq. There's a reaosn the U.S. will never invade N. Korea or Pakistan, two countries FAR more dangerous than Iran.

If Obama wins a second term, I want him to pimp slap Bibi in the Oval Office and tell him to go fuck himself. I know that will never happen, but I can dream.

What about what Iran can do to its own people?

The aftermath of the "Green Revolution" anyone.

 

[goomba]

What about what Iran can do to its own people?

The aftermath of the "Green Revolution" anyone.

You think Iran is going to nuke its own people?

 

[Freezie KO]

I don't blame Iran for being afraid of a US-led invasion. The US invaded Iraq for no discernable reason, so the bomb is a perfect deterrent in their eyes.

On the other hand, the political instability in Iran is precisely a reason not to let them have the bomb. If they begin producing nuclear weapons and then the government collapses, the shit could really hit the fan. Maybe Iran wouldn't use nuclear capabilities, but Hezbollah could or Syrian militants could, if they obtained them or if the weapons were smuggled out of the country.

It's not like the Green Movement is going to magically ascend to a constitutional government with full control over the security of nuclear weapons. And further, that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're actually "progressive," which we should all have our reasonable doubts about, given the opposition parties in Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

So basically, it's hard to blame Iran for wanting the bomb. But I still don't want them to have it.

 

[Sirpopopop]

You think Iran is going to nuke its own people?

No, but it would be exponentially more difficult for international pressure to aid their people (like in Egypt) should they choose to revolt against their government for its repressive practices.

 

[phosphor112]

You really think Iran will hand one of their handful of nukes to a poorly controlled 3rd party?
Not to mention that Israel will turn them into a glass parking lot in the case of a nuclear detonation, with or without evidence.

What nukes?

 

[BigJonsson]

I wish my Israeli brethren would stop electing Netenyahu =/



MADD works but religious leaders aren't always rational actors.....and a strike to get rid of the program before it can yield weapons will just lead to another huge war which could be worse than letting them have some weapons which probably will never be used

 

[black_13]

For anyone who doesn't know, the sanctions are really starting to squeeze the economy in Iran. The currency Rial has just been going higher and higher and it had a huge jump in mid 2012.

In all honestly that's the best way we can try and devoid this conflict. Keep squeezing it till hopefully the Green Movement rises up again and takes over. But you can't expect that to happen over night. The 1979 revolution took almost a year to lead up to that.

An all out war like Israel wants will be just batshit crazy. The whole region would just be destroyed and who knows, WWIII maybe.

 

[speculawyer]

For anyone who doesn't know, the sanctions are really starting to squeeze the economy in Iran. The currency Rial has just been going higher and higher and it had a huge jump in mid 2012.

In all honestly that's the best way we can try and devoid this conflict. Keep squeezing it till hopefully the Green Movement rises up again and takes over. But you can't expect that to happen over night. The 1979 revolution took almost a year to lead up to that.

We don't even need a revolution. Just some sort of grand bargain would do. Strict inspections, let the Russians supply the with fuel, open them up to trade . . . and this whole fucking stupid shit could go away.

 

[Freezie KO]

An all out war like Israel wants will be just batshit crazy. The whole region would just be destroyed and who knows, WWIII maybe.

If Israel really wanted an all-out war, they could have one.

 

[strobogo]

Neither side will ever make the first move unless things deteriorate dramatically. In Iran's case, they'd be demolished in days by the US. In Israel's case, they'd be attacked by the entire region. I have serious doubts that China and Russia would actually defend Iran if they made a first strike, just to avoid war with the US. Each side's allies are more of a deterrent than MAD.

Something I've never understood is why or how the US/UN got the authority to tell countries they can or can't have nuclear weapons. Why is it ok for the US/China/India/North Korea to have nukes, but a country like Iran isn't allowed to have them? Or Iraq. I legitimately don't understand where the authority comes from to deny certain countries the right to make nuclear weapons. To the point of war or sabotage. And how is sabotaging Iran's nuclear program NOT an act of war? If any foreign country did anything even remotely similar to America, we'd be bombing the shit out of them that day. If a country has the means and know how to make nuclear weapons, how can any other country be allowed to stop them?

I mean, the US clearly has weapons of mass destruction and the world seems to be cool with it. I just don't understand where the "well, we can have them, but fuck you, you guys can't ever get them" attitude comes from. Or how it is allowed.


And kind of unrelated, I'm really sick of this Iran shit. Every few months the news has tons of coverage in Iran, clearly gearing us up for another war. Then it falls out of the news for months. Then it comes back up. Then nothing for months. This cycle has been going on in earnest since 2006 or so. I'm sure it happened on and off before then, but I didn't notice it nearly as much until 2006ish. Obviously there is nothing for us to go to war over or else we would have years ago. I'm so tired of hearing about it. Each cycle I wonder more and more about why we're allowed to stop any nation from building their own nukes. Would the US not allow a country like, say, Norway to build nukes? Or Australia. Or a random South American country not headed by Chavez?

 

[Laughing Banana]

No, but it would be exponentially more difficult for international pressure to aid their people (like in Egypt) should they choose to revolt against their government for its repressive practices.

I wonder, if ever an honest 100% free-for-intervention poll ever pulled for Iranian folks asking, "Are you happy with your country now?", how much will say "Yes" and how much will say "No"?

"Aid their people", "revolt", "repressive"--it seems like there is this notion from Iranian outsiders that Iranian people are so sick and so oppressed and so unhappy with their country. But is that really the case on the general Iranian public?

 

[Freezie KO]

I mean, the US clearly has weapons of mass destruction and the world seems to be cool with it. I just don't understand where the "well, we can have them, but fuck you, you guys can't ever get them" attitude comes from. Or how it is allowed.

You really don't understand how come the countries with nuclear weapons get to make the rules on who gets to have nuclear weapons? I'll give you a hint: The answer is in the question.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Something I've never understood is why or how the US/UN got the authority to tell countries they can or can't have nuclear weapons. Why is it ok for the US/China/India/North Korea to have nukes, but a country like Iran isn't allowed to have them?

Iran has signed and ratified the NNPT. And they aren't "OK" with NK/Pakistan etc having nuclear weapons, its just that there's realistically nothing they can do about it. It's just realpolitik.

 

[Dead Man]

World: Netanyahu has no clue what "Moral" actually means.

Yep. I think decades of unequivocal US support have damaged the faculties of some Israeli politicians.

 

[Typhoon_Ex]

Pure rethoric, same shit different day.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are increasing the sabre rattling due to the upcoming November election at the request of the Republicans to strenghten their base.

Israel really has no capability to take on Iran by itself and the repercussions to the world economy in the event of a war are huge.

 

[Vagabundo]

Iran has signed and ratified the NNPT. And they aren't "OK" with NK/Pakistan etc having nuclear weapons, its just that there's realistically nothing they can do about it. It's just realpolitik.

NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support the NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty. NATO's argument is based on the phrase "the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war" in the treaty preamble, inserted at the behest of U.S. diplomats, arguing that the treaty would at that point have failed to fulfill its function of prohibiting a general war and thus no longer be binding.[25] Many states do not accept this argument. See United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing above.

If Israel attacks Iran can ignore the treaty. Would be interesting if that happened.

 

[Angry Fork]

So I just read articles that Obama has 'snubbed' the prime minister by not meeting him and have a few questions to see what you guys think.

1. Do you think that's true or was he really too busy?
2. What are the implications if he did decide not to? Does this mean Obama may be growing a backbone and won't support Israel if they attack Iran?
3. Why do we give so much money/aid to Israel in the first place? I genuinely don't know when this started and why. What exactly do they do for us? What is the point of having them as an ally?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If Israel attacks Iran can ignore the treaty. Would be interesting if that happened.

The tready forbids them from constructing them initially, so if they suddenly deployed them and argued that Israel attacked so they weren't part of the treaty anymore that would not really be valid - they must have violated the treaty prior to have developed them. Unless you just mean that in the aftermath of an attack, Iran begins development using this argument.

 

[Cromat]

As an Israeli it makes me sick to see the damage this idiot is doing to our country.

 

[bafflewaffle]

First of all, I'm anti war and hate politics, so no dog in that side of the fight. Otherwise, my take:

A country which understandably doesn't want to experience another Holocaust yet at the same time now thinks it's perfectly fine to allow its own soldiers to indiscriminately murder unarmed men, women and children, picking them off like dogs and sometimes even using them as human shields in house searches wants to preach to the world about "drawing moral lines and preventing atrocities." Now there's a paradox of hypocrisy for ya.



Hey, since you're taking the opportunity to be cute with the Yiddish, could you tell me if there's a phrase for "good boy" in a suit who thinks it's OK to blow the head off an innocent, elderly Lebanese woman or a child walking across a road? And maybe you could also enlighten folks as how to say "murderous blabbering gasbag" in Hebrew?

a nar ken fregen mer frages in a sho vi a kluger ken entferen in a yor.

 

[Ikael]

Israel won't stop Iran by their own, they will need to drag the US and several other countries to do it so, like Saudi Arabia and their airspace, for starters. So the world, moral right or not, can stop Israel from attacking Iran. So what are they exactly going to do about it, then?

 

[theignoramus]

For anyone who doesn't know, the sanctions are really starting to squeeze the economy in Iran. The currency Rial has just been going higher and higher and it had a huge jump in mid 2012.

In all honestly that's the best way we can try and devoid this conflict. Keep squeezing it till hopefully the Green Movement rises up again and takes over. But you can't expect that to happen over night. The 1979 revolution took almost a year to lead up to that.

An all out war like Israel wants will be just batshit crazy. The whole region would just be destroyed and who knows, WWIII maybe.

Just like what happened in Iraq. and North Korea! oh wait...the sanctions destroyed the Iraqi opposition and made everyone reliant on regime handouts to even survive. and NK remains a vision of hell. sanctions dont work. they just give the diplomatic community the appearance of doing something, they dont impact the regime, only the people being squeezed by it.

 

[Osietra]

Quite an interesting viewpoint. Especially the end part.

Back in April, I offered a few thoughts on Iran, suggesting that war was far from imminent and we should all calm down a bit. Since then, formal diplomacy between Iran and the world’s six leading powers has fallen apart since the failure of the Moscow talks in June. Meanwhile, Israel’s political leadership is, once again, threatening a preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
So was I wrong? Well, I’m going to stick my neck out and argue that my conclusions from April are still valid. War is not around the corner and it might not happen at all. I claim no great insight and I could be proven wrong tomorrow if Israel were attack targets across Iran. But here’s why I think the case against panic remains conclusive:
1. War with Iran would be bad for Israel. The Iranian people would probably respond to outside attack by rallying behind their leaders and strengthening a deeply unpopular regime. Iran would hit back through Hizbollah in Lebanon and by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, with serious civilian casualties in Israel and incalculable consequences for the global economy. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad would have the opportunity to pose alongside Iran as a dual victim of a Zionist plot against the Muslim world. It might be just the boost that Assad needs. And the best the Israeli air force could achieve would be to delay – not derail – Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s pilots would impose nothing more than a relatively short interval before Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability anyway. In fact, a war could have the opposite effect to the one desired. Iran’s leaders want the ability to build a Bomb, but they have not yet decided whether to actually go ahead and become a nuclear-armed state. If Israel attacks, they would be compelled to take a decision – and we can all guess what it would be.
2. Israel’s military and security leadership understands all of the above. Sundry ex-Mossad chiefs have publicly argued that hitting Iran would be a bad idea. General Benny Gantz, the current chief of staff and Israel’s most senior soldier, has given a sober and measured assessment of Iran’s intentions. He thinks that Iranian leaders are “very rational people” who, in the final analysis, will not go ahead and build a Bomb – assuming they aren’t attacked, of course. Israel’s decision-makers cannot ignore these arguments, even supposing their air force has the ability to inflict more than temporary damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which seems unlikely.
3. The outlines of a deal between Iran and America are emerging. I don’t mean a formal agreement, still less a “Nixon goes to China” diplomatic breakthrough. I’m not suggesting that the Obama administration is about to announce that secret diplomacy with Iran has solved the problem. I mean that both sides might quietly decide they can live with the status quo. In other words, Iran comes close to the ability to build a nuclear weapon, but its leaders refrain from going the final mile and actually manufacturing a Bomb. America, for its part, lives with an Iran on the threshold of nuclear capability, provided that Tehran holds back and opts not to become a nuclear-armed state. Iran and America might feel their way towards an implicit arrangement along these lines.
4. That could be the least worst option for the West. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is 73 and sick. No-one knows what’s wrong with him (pancreatic cancer, say some, prostrate cancer, say others). It doesn’t matter: the point is that he could disappear from the scene at any moment. Meanwhile, President Ahamdinejad is a lame duck who will go at the end of his term in June. So it’s perfectly possible that Iran will have a new leadership in a year or two – and that could create an opening. Until then, preserving the status quo is the least unappealing option.
To sum up, I think the real objective of American and Western policy is to keep Iran exactly where it is – ie, some way short of the ability to build a nuclear weapon – until the inevitable moment of political change arrives in Tehran. Hence the emphasis on direct sabotage of the nuclear programme. It’s all about slowing down the nuclear clock and obstructing all Iran’s efforts until the current leadership disappears of its own accord. That is an entirely sensible objective.
If Iran were to embark on a sudden sprint to a nuclear weapon – something that would require the expulsion of United Nations inspectors and formal withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty – then every calculation would change. If Iran radically alters the status quo, military action might become the least awful option. But for Israel to throw all the pieces in the air by going to war in the next few months would be the height of folly. I don’t believe it will happen.

 

[strobogo]

You really don't understand how come the countries with nuclear weapons get to make the rules on who gets to have nuclear weapons? I'll give you a hint: The answer is in the question.

I understand that. It's just so blatantly hypocritical and weird that I can't believe the international community just lets it go. I mean, it's not like the US is going to drop a nuclear bomb on anyone anytime soon because they disagreed with America on some country getting one, too. There are probably some countries that really shouldn't have one, but I don't see how it is legal in any way for America to deny another country. Especially when they threaten physical action and sabotage as a form of prevention. I mean, what the fuck?


To be a little more on topic, obviously Israel has a right to defend themselves and take threats from other nations seriously. But perhaps they could show a little more tact in how they express it. Any leader that makes statements like that should have some condemnation. That's not only antagonizing countries that would want to attack Israel, but also puts unnecessary pressure on allies. From a purely political standpoint, telling the whole world to suck it probably isn't the best move to make. Especially from a nation in the pretty unique position that Israel is in.

 

[captainnapalm]

Ah, Israel. Can't live with them, can't teleport them to Pluto.

 

[Phantast2k]

0 BC to 1900 AD: Jews make up minority around present day Israel

1900 to 2000, Jews begin to outnumber the natives 3:1.

What accounts for the sudden emigration of Jews to the land of Palestine, other than Balfour declaration and the mandate?

Besides, you are not allowed to set up shop in a land just because your book says it's a nice place.

lol, what? By that proxy, Turks should gtfo out of Anatolia and Arabs should gtfo out of Maghreb and´contain themselves to the Arabian peninsula.

I don't see what I said has got to do with Arabs in Maghreb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb

The Muslim conquest of North Africa continued the century of rapid Arab Muslim military expansion following the death of Muhammad in 632 CE. By 640 the Arabs controlled Mesopotamia, had invaded Armenia, and were concluding their conquest of Byzantine Syria. Damascus was the seat of the Umayyad caliphate. And by the end of 641 all of Egypt was in Arab hands. Then, with the destruction of the Persian army at the Battle of Nihawānd (Nehawand) in 642, the conquest of the Persian Empire was essentially finished.

 

[Agent Unknown]

a nar ken fregen mer frages in a sho vi a kluger ken entferen in a yor.

Anybody here know what smartaleck thing waffle said (this is the guy who called us "crazy Gentiles" in Yiddish earlier)? Online translators pull up nothing on whatever this language is (Dutch, German...Marshallese?)

 

[Sirpopopop]

I wonder, if ever an honest 100% free-for-intervention poll ever pulled for Iranian folks asking, "Are you happy with your country now?", how much will say "Yes" and how much will say "No"?

"Aid their people", "revolt", "repressive"--it seems like there is this notion from Iranian outsiders that Iranian people are so sick and so oppressed and so unhappy with their country. But is that really the case on the general Iranian public?

And you ignore the word "should."

And to label their response to the Green Revolution as anything but repressive following the Green Revolution is patently ridiculous.

 

[this guy are sick]

Anybody here know what smartaleck thing waffle said (this is the guy who called us "crazy Gentiles" in Yiddish earlier)? Online translators pull up nothing on whatever this language is (Dutch, German...Marshallese?)

A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a year.

 

[Agent Unknown]

bafflewaffle Banned

A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a year.

Oh yeah? I have a little sage quote of my own:

"Though a troll disguised as a wise man may hide behind a hundred tongues, it only takes but the single sword stroke of an enlightened king to cut them all off at once."

 

[Fox Mulder]

Is it possible that Iran is actually trying to create a neclear bomb, and Isreal is concerned about this? And due to the history of the region, actually fears for its own safety?

I know...a shocking development.

Sure, but Iran is equally fearing for its own security. Iran has seen wars occur in two countries bordering them, theyre under heavy sanctions, and their scientists are routinely killed in "accidents". Whenever a conflict starts, Israel has the US in their pocket.

Having nukes gives you a extra bargaining power and security.

 

[sharbhund]

So I just read articles that Obama has 'snubbed' the prime minister by not meeting him and have a few questions to see what you guys think.

1. Do you think that's true or was he really too busy?
2. What are the implications if he did decide not to? Does this mean Obama may be growing a backbone and won't support Israel if they attack Iran?
3. Why do we give so much money/aid to Israel in the first place? I genuinely don't know when this started and why. What exactly do they do for us? What is the point of having them as an ally?

Here's Kevin Drum's take:

Certainly I don't believe for a second that Obama couldn't have rearranged his schedule to meet with Netanyahu if he'd wanted to.

But I think the main reason for Obama's reticence is hidden in plain sight: the source for this story is an "Israeli official." In other words, it comes from Netanyahu himself (via an aide), trying once again to create an incident at Obama's expense. Basically, Obama understands quite keenly that a meeting with Netanyahu is a no-win situation. Netanyahu almost certainly won't get everything he wants, and Obama can't trust him not to immediately begin leaking the most damaging possible version of the meeting to his pals in Congress. For all practical purposes, he knows perfectly well that he has to treat Netanyahu as an arm of the Republican Party whose main goal is to prevent his reelection.

Given that, it's much better to simply pretend that scheduling conflicts make a meeting impossible. Netanyahu can complain, but unless he's willing to flatly call the president a liar, he can't make anything stick. It's just a scheduling conflict. Bill Kristol will write an aggrieved op-ed about it in the Weekly Standard, but that's about as far as it will go.

 

[The Adder]

If he wants his country to go to war with Iran, he should have his country go to war with Iran. There is no reason WE should go to war with Iran because he feels it's in the best interest of HIS country.

He sure as shit didn't help in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. The fuck do we owe him?

If he wants to invest his country's funds and his countrymen's lives in a war over the unlikely theoretical outcome of a more likely, and yet still theoretical, event, let him. We've played that game before, and I don't support us playing it again.

 

[nelsonroyale]

A thoroughly unpleasant windbag

 

[JonnyBrad]

Khomeini is the real power behind the machine

Khomeini has been dead for 20 years. I assume you mean Khamenei.